Owning assault gun, growing pot are immoral, court says

Share this:

Possessing a semiautomatic “assault weapon” and growing marijuana are not only illegal, they’re also immoral — at least according to a state appeals court.

Courts don’t usually act as the morals police. But the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles was cast in that role recently when it considered the pot-growing convictions of a man named Solomon Gabriel.

Gabriel was arrested by Los Angeles County deputies in 2009 and charged with growing 17 marijuana plants that officers found on his rural property, along with burglary tools and two boxes of bullets. He testified that he used the marijuana to treat his headaches. To challenge his credibility, prosecutors introduced evidence that Gabriel had been convicted earlier in 2009 of marijuana cultivation and possession of an assault weapon. A jury found him guilty of the new cultivation charge and other offenses, and he was sentenced to four years in prison.

Morality enters the picture because when a defendant takes the stand, state law allows prosecutors to offer evidence that the defendant was previously convicted of crimes involving “moral turpitude,” which is legalese for conduct that’s inherently depraved. The court said both of Gabriel’s past crimes fit that description.

California has outlawed assault weapons because they’re used for crimes, not hunting or recreation, the court said, and Gabriel should have known that the gun he was convicted of possessing was “partiuclarly dangerous to human life.” As for cultivating marijuana, the court noted that it’s a felony punishable by a state prison term, in contrast to possessing pot, which carries a maximum $100 fine for small amounts and up to six months in jail for a larger supply.

Pot-growing has a “potential for trafficking,” and the Legislature has determined that it is “more contemptible than simple possession,” said Justice Victoria Chavez in a 3-0 ruling Feb. 3 that upheld Gabriel’s convictions. It’s available at www.courtinfo/opinions/documents/B228244.PDF.

Attorney Carl Hancock said he’ll probably ask the state Supreme Court to review the case. There’s a fine line between conventional firearms and assault weapons, he said — in some cases, a difference of a single bullet, which shouldn’t cross any moral threshold. And not all marijuana growers are alike, Hancock said — “if you’re growing for personal use, it’s not trafficking.”